Account for types of higher-order functions during typechecking#53
Merged
Conversation
VietAnh1010
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
Collaborator
|
Keep this PR small and clean, and let's merge this PR early. Afterward, fix the type var unification problem: go through the all the places where rewriting rules are created (say, to unfold predicates, after the definitions), and add necessary modifications. This will be necessary before I can start fixing inductive proofs. |
VietAnh1010
reviewed
Aug 22, 2025
VietAnh1010
approved these changes
Aug 25, 2025
VietAnh1010
left a comment
VietAnh1010
left a comment
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, this can be merged now.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Take the argument and return types of higher-order function calls into account during type checking. This deprecates the use of higher-order function names as predicates for results (i.e.
f(a, b, ..., res)) in staged specifications, instead preferring to use binds (see #52 for related work).This addresses the instance of #51 I noticed during debugging, but unifying types of terms during rewriting remains disabled (although re-enabling unification of term types does not seem to break anything at the moment).
Also adds some tweaks to the debug spans to resolve #47.